6 ms·
I wish there was some. Again, it's based on the change in R0. From another article[0]: "New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running
by jtbayly 7y ago
I wish there was some. Again, it's based on the change in R0. From another article[0]:
"New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5."
[0]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-i...
- sjg007 7y agoAn R0 of 3 is still catastrophic. It’s your whole nuclear family plus one. What was R0 before?